How far is the third rail from Grand Central?

Otto Vondrak wrote:Why do we want Acela in GCT? First, I could be wrong, but I dont think Acela is designed to run on 600v DC, I think only off the pans. Second, Amtrak consolidated all their New York service to Penn Station to avoid the awkward crosstown transfer to Penn Station.

-otto-

When the Channel Tunnel opened ten years ago trains began to run from London to Paris. These were based on the French TGV. But the then government (Mrs Thatcher) had refused to build a special high speed line between London and the Tunnel. So these High Speed trains instead of running from the high volatage AC overhead they are designed for had to use the 750 volt DC system laid down by the former Southern Railway. They can only do this by moving much slower than their design speed and reducing their need for hotel power. Fortunately a new high speed line with overhead power is now nearly finished and they can now travel at full speed for most of their journey. It makes the trains much more complicated than a single power system would be.

Acela's mission was to be competition to the shuttle Jet services from Kennedy and LaGuardia to DC. Acela as a commuter service on MNRR territory where it travels a staggering 90 mph for a couple of miles is overkill. I don't know the exact numbers but I seriouslly doubt anyone is commuting from Boston or Providence to NYC every day to work in midtown.

Swedish Meatball wrote:Acela's mission was to be competition to the shuttle Jet services from Kennedy and LaGuardia to DC. Acela as a commuter service on MNRR territory where it travels a staggering 90 mph for a coupe of miles is overkill.

Acela as a commuter service? Where did that idea come from?

Why on earth would you want to blow that kinda money on running ONE train into GCT? To make the Acela capable of running into GCT you need to do a whole lot more than merely bolt 3rd rail shoes to it's trucks. You're gonna need to completely change the electronics that handle traction. The GCT 3rd rail and the NYP catenary are nowhere near equal in voltage, GCT is a 750volts DC system, while NYP uses 11,500volts AC (as well as a 750vdc 3rd rail for LIRR, which as mentioned is physically incompatible with MN's 3rd rail), given that they use a now swiftly aging GTO Thyristor system, some physical tweaking of the traction supplies would be needed. To say it'd be difficult is an understatement, you'd have to find a way to get the shoes to retract or it'd be forever limited to service from GCT to Boston. If you really want fast GCT-BOS service, we'd do better to just order a single Acela with DC operation built into run that route, but that'd still be a rather poor idea.

Now, in terms of actually possible things, why can't MN or ConnDot order some ALP46s for service from New Haven to NYP after LIRR's East Side Access opens? Regardless of what Amtrak and LIRR say, there must be some slots that will open up, the NH line could slip a few peak hour express trains into NYP, possibly easing the load on the Lex in Midtown. On a slightly more farfetched note, it would be possible for ConnDot or MN to modify the german Class 189 loco in the same manner that NJT modified the Class 185 into the ALP46. The Class 189 is a push-pull loco from Siemens which is capable of running under 4 catenary systems, 1500vdc, 3000vdc, 15kv@17hz, and 25kv@50hz. NJT and BBD's ADTranz division adopted the Class 185 almost flawlessly for US operation, I think it'd be childs play to modify a locomotive with an exisisting DC capability into a US market dual-system loco. In this case it quite literally would be "Bolt 3rd rail shoes on, install beefier wire to traction supply, change software in IGBT" to account for the changes in 1500vdc cat to 750vdc 3rd rail. MN's NH operations would then have a locomotive capable of operation all the way to Boston if the need ever arose (Thanksgiving Service?), and with retracting shoes, of roaming the entire NEC, capable of bringing SLE service straight to GCT or of handling the NH line's expresses while not wasting MUs better used on local trains where their acceleration can best be used.

Lackawanna484: Your post is just 2 above mine. You are the one who said that the bankers, and other influential business people would be closer to work by using GCT. So if they are going to work they would be commuting.

Metro North would prefer for it not to happen, but its been done when Empire service trains have detoured into GCT. If the shoes are not raised you will still pick up voltage from the 3rd rail.

Swedish Meatball wrote:Lackawanna484: Your post is just 2 above mine. You are the one who said that the bankers, and other influential business people would be closer to work by using GCT. So if they are going to work they would be commuting.

------------

If you interpreted my comments as "going to work" that's either imprecision on my part or speculative reading on your part. My comment referred to the travels of investment bankers between Boston and New York/Stamford. My colleagues in Stamford are excellent examples of that, with their regular trips to Boston often on the train.

I'm sure people around GCT would be more likely to take an Acela out of GCT, than go over to NYP, but what do I know?

Amtrak has plenty of customers, doesn't need any more, they all pay full fare, so all's well in the world...

Amtrak spent millions in 1991 to move out of GCT, they aren't going to spend millions to come back in.

You may want to consider posting your idea on our Amtrak forum... see what kind of discussion results?

-otto-

The move by Amtral to NY penn station was mandated by rail revitalization act of 1973, its not gone be undone.
Amtrak saves 2.3 million dollar by going to Penn station and not to have dual groups of employees service the trains.

The third rail Issue is still the same, the LIRR shoes Do NOT work on MNCR rail while moving, if they are raised while under MNCR third rail while standing still the locomotive can draw power for HEP and such, but the moment you move the shoes pop up at next gap.

DutchRailnut wrote:The move by Amtral to NY penn station was mandated by rail revitalization act of 1973, its not gone be undone.

Dutch,
I'm not familar with the subject, so my question is if it was mandated by the Rail Revitalization Act of 1973, why did it take till 1991? (And I'm not saying this isn't the case.... just wondering why it took so long). I know goverment can move slowly, but 18 years seems even slower than normal.

Eric

it took 18 years for planning, fighting nimby's, building the tunnel looping over the Hudson tunnels, building the rail line from Penn station to Spuyten Duyvil including the bridge that had to be totaly remanufactured.

DutchRailnut wrote:it took 18 years for planning, fighting nimby's, building the tunnel looping over the Hudson tunnels, building the rail line from Penn station to Spuyten Duyvil including the bridge that had to be totaly remanufactured.

Thanks for the info, I didn't relize how much work went into bringing Amtrak into NY Penn. Do you know how much the cost of this work was? I had to agree that Amtrak going into one station makes alot more sence. What a pain it must have been to transfer from a train coming into Penn and then having to trek over to GCT, especially with luggage.

It is interesting that the New York Connecting RR was finished in 1917 and as late as 1970, Penn Central was only running a handful of trains straight through from Boston to NYP (and onto Wash). And many high profile trains (like the NH Cape Cod in the 60s) required a taxi transfer from NYP to GCT for passengers coming from WASH.

It is way better today with all service going through Penn. Now they just need to add another tunnel...